BS: Scientific misconceptions.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 06:43 PM

Trying to find his way out of the rhododendron bush.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 06:39 PM

Firth: "See how it is, folks? "Arf! Arf! Arf! Arf! Arf! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!"


Need I say more???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 06:34 PM

Another point, Goofus, where you either lie or simply don't understand. I don't always lose. The fact is, you don't like the plain truth, so you simply deny it. Your loss.

By the way, I thought Catholics were Christian. You're telling my that Gregor Mendel was a Catholic, but he was not a Christian? Explain, if you please, how THAT works.

See how it is, folks? "Arf! Arf! Arf! Arf! Arf! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!"

About which time he tries to bite my ankle, and I lean down, pick him up, and throw him back over the hedge, making sure he lands in the rhododendron bush so he doesn't get hurt and it will take him at least an hour to figure out how to get out of it.

But I think it's in his genes. He can't help it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: sciencegeek
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 06:33 PM

Penny S... yes, I know about the history of the area... and that's why it works as an example... you have historic documents along with archaeological evidence to corroborate the genetic evidence. They work together to help fill out the picture of our past.   

If you only know about Sicily from movies like the Godfather, you would assume that they are all like stereotypical southern Italians. Only by delving deeper do you get a more accurate understanding. Though, of course, their next door neighbors in Sicily might not have quite the same makeup. It just reminded me of a story my mom told about a young patient at the dental office she worked at who had been given a hard time by his teacher when they did a report on their family backgrounds. She accused him of making it up when he wrote that he was part Chinese. The teacher later got a visit from his rather upset Eurasian mother. Hopefully she learned her lesson not to assume.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Penny S.
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 05:37 PM

sciencegeek, there's nothing surprising about Scandinavian and Germanic traces in the genome of a Sicilian - it would be surprising if there weren't, as it was one of the places where the Normans who couldn't get into the British Isles invaded and settled.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 05:25 PM

Hey...as long as we're at it...Is intelligence a unseen, non-existing re-action??

GfS

P.S....and is it 'evolving??

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 05:22 PM

Firth: "Pete, I know you don't want to hear this, but it's true. The fact of evolution has been long know—and used—by farmers, animal breeders, and such, and the mechanism was thoroughly analyzed by a
Christian monk."

A-hemmm...you mean a 'Catholic' monk....

BTW, is LOVE a chemical re-action??....(I know I'm asking the wrong person...but....WTF!??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 05:18 PM

Firth: "I no longer waste my time and energy trying to argue with this egotistical and incoherent non-entity. I get more incisive and intelligent commentaries and opinions from my neighbor's yappie little Yorkshire terrier."

For one, you always lose...and secondly,.."I get more incisive and intelligent commentaries and opinions from my neighbor's yappie little Yorkshire terrier."....We hold these truths to be self evident!!!

Oh well...have fun...thought the thread needed a boost!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 05:14 PM

Pete, I know you don't want to hear this, but it's true. The fact of evolution has been long know—and used—by farmers, animal breeders, and such, and the mechanism was thoroughly analyzed by a
Christian monk.

Read the following article:   CLICKY

Two things you need to take on board:

1. Evolution is an established and demonstrated fact.

2. If it makes you more comfortable to think in these terms, then evolution is the way God did it. And still does it.

Mendel proved that by demonstrating it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 04:34 PM

hi #, no idea who you are but best to you too. thankyou for a constructive post, though it seems I will have to wait for part 2 to get at what you are saying.
it has been a long standing disagreement between me and evolutionists, that I draw a distinction between operational science, and origins science which is not observable in the here and now.
you can of course examine data relating to the past , but the worldview of the scientist will colour his interpretation....as gfs says "ideologically driven".
sciencegeek,...whether you can trace your forbears back a thousand generations [how long ago would that be?] says nothing about validating your bacteria to biologist belief. still less about the very beginnings of the evolutionary story. imo it is a faith position. or as you say "fantasy and speculation"
I don't need to be a scientist to know that you are a long way short of evidence.
not everyone, and not just the lesser educated believes Darwinism...neo or not. .... maybe you need to get over it yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 04:27 PM

I think the operational word is "from."

"Guest from Sanity."

As in "no longer there."

I no longer waste my time and energy trying to argue with this egotistical and incoherent non-entity. I get more incisive and intelligent commentaries and opinions from my neighbor's yappie little Yorkshire terrier.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 03:15 PM

"Science is the religion of guessing, and religion is the art of pretending" "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

WTF???? the two statements say two completely different things... what could possibly be sane about comparing apples to oranges with no effort to put them into an understandable context??? the only thing they share are the words science and relgion... wow earth shaking

why not just print out a million letters and say that in them is a work by Shakespeare. If the letters do not form words and sentences, then it's just a million letters printed out.

what you have just done is equate blithering with sanity... well, it just doesn't fly... not in my universe. You live in a very strange place of fantasy and delusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 03:00 PM

Sciencegeek: "There is no and never has been a deity of science and any "faith" involved is no more or less than the assumption that since the sun rose this morning as it has for the past 4 billion years, we can pretty safely assume that it will tomorrow."

You COMPLETELY MISSED what I said, or misinterpreted it!

OH..By the way......"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."---Albert Einstein

Methinks I'm a LOT closer than you!!


Musket: "Goofus has weighed in. Should be fun."

Of course...that's what happens when SANITY meets with ideologically driven opinions, that are mistaken for scientific facts!!

The ideologue nincompoops often get annoyed, if they have to THINK too hard, beyond their propaganda!....Just take a look around!!!


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 10:28 AM

Some religions, note science is not one of them:)

Taoism: Shit happens. 
Hinduism: This shit happened before. 
Confucianism: Confucius says, "Shit happens". 
Buddhism: If shit happens it isn't really shit. 
Zen: What is the sound of shit happening? 
Islam: If shit happens, it is the Will of Allah. 
Jehovah's witness: Knock, knock. "Shit happens." 
Atheism: There is no shit. 
Agnosticism: I don't know whether shit happens. 
Protestantism: Shit won't happen if I work harder. 
Catholicism: If shit happens, I deserved it. 
Judaism: Why does this shit always happen to us?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 10:02 AM

Pete said:

Darwin knew nothing of mutations, I presume , so that being the added ingredient, added subsequent to darwins idea.ie , I presume mutations as the agent of change was not on his radar.

While Darwin did not say "mutations", he spoke at many points
of "changes" being inherited and "selected for". So, while he did not put forth that word, what is a mutation but an inheritable change?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 09:03 AM

"Like I said earlier in the thread.... "Science is the religion of guessing, and religion is the art of pretending"....still holds up!

GfS "

not hardly... your statement makes as much sense as saying the hammer is the chisel of pounding.... you still don't get it.

There is no and never has been a deity of science and any "faith" involved is no more or less than the assumption that since the sun rose this morning as it has for the past 4 billion years, we can pretty safely assume that it will tomorrow. And that assumption will be changed if better information arrives to indicate that something else will happen... Religion is blind faith in something that can't be tested for verity.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Musket
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 05:29 AM

That should read Messiah Emeritus...

Tsk.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 01:53 AM

Flintlock ? Yeah, ok, maybe.

Here, Steve. Who are the fellow believers pete refers to? Have you been joining religious clubs behind my back? The emeritus messiah with Gnomish attributes may have something to say about that.

Anyway, I'm off to get the popcorn and cola. Goofus has weighed in. Should be fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 01:18 AM

Guest#: "In short, scientists went up and down blind alleys, went off on false trails, wandered in areas that led nowhere in their studies, but with free exchange of information finally they got it figured out. IMO, that is the beauty of science, and it's also what makes me laugh about it."

Like I said earlier in the thread.... "Science is the religion of guessing, and religion is the art of pretending"....still holds up!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 01 Jul 14 - 08:23 PM

"in the mean time, I must admit , that it is quite amusing watching a bunch of scientists who all believe evolution is true, squabbling about how it is supposed to have happened!"

Hi, pete.I trust you're staying well and that things are going good.

In response to the statement of yours I quoted, I agree, but for different reasons. When we look at the work of the Austrian(?) monk, Gregor Mendel, we see a man who kept good notes and was able to determine that there were dominant and recessive traits at work in the pea plants(?) he studied. How they worked he didn't understand. What the heck caused a trait? Fast forward to Watson, Crick and Wilkins, and they too were thoroughly befuddled trying to see how the structure of DNA could be, given that certain conditions had to be met, mostly to do with bonding of atomic structures (things that bond the way they do because conditions are right for them to do so, and that they have to do). That was back in the early 1950s. They received a Nobel for that work. http://www.dnaftb.org/19

Now we fast-forward once again to the Human Genome Project. It utilized computational power from volunteers all over the planet. A tremendous and very exciting exploration that determined so much about humans as we are today. It changed much of our thinking and understanding and understanding about our thinking. The following is one of the better and easier essays to understand. (I read The Double Helix when I was in my late teens or early twenties. I felt much like Woody Allen who said 'I took a speed reading course and read War and Peace in 17 minutes. It's about Russia.')

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/human-genome-project-results.htm

Science as a discipline is not unified, and it gets less and less unified the more we know. Science is not one big discipline, but it is at once more than the sum of its parts.

Disparate observations lead to some great discoveries. One of the stories that stayed with me for forty years has to do with sickle cell anemia and malaria. It was an observation that the mapped areas of Africa these dudes were looking at (I think they were epidemiologists, so maybe dudes is a bit flippant :-)). Anyway, someone noticed that the shaded areas mapping both where malaria was was almost exactly matched by the shaded area where sickle cell anemia was prevalent. SCA (sickle cell anemia) comes in two main varieties: one kills people before the age of five or earlier, and the other seems to let people live much longer than that. Anyway, mosquitoes were killing people all over the place by infecting folks with bad stuff. The thinking back then was that the lower oxygen content of the blood stream in people with SCA was causing fewer and less serious cases of malaria. Then finally it was determined that this was what was at work:

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110428123931.htm

In short, scientists went up and down blind alleys, went off on false trails, wandered in areas that led nowhere in their studies, but with free exchange of information finally they got it figured out. IMO, that is the beauty of science, and it's also what makes me laugh about it. Takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'.

This is part one of a two-part letter to you because I don't want to bore the real scientists on the site. And I don't remember where the hell I was going with this. Too much aluminium in my diet :-) Also, I tried with hot links but the post wouldn't take (tried four times), so they gotta come the way they have.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: sciencegeek
Date: 01 Jul 14 - 08:01 PM

pete... believe it not, the thread is about scientific misconceptions... not evolution per se... that's your hangup and one that seems to be immune to logic. scientific method applies to ALL sciences... it's what makes them sciences and not exercises in fantasy or speculation.

and the reason I may speak like a scientist is because I am trained in the sciences and work in the environmental field that relies heavily on science and technology.

as for your obsession with pond scum... since life evolved eons ago and plate techtonics have shaped and reshaped the planet's surface any number of times, there is limited evidence left. therefore, we have to use indirect means to figure things out. this is a slow process and full of gaps in our knowledge... but... and it's a big but.... just because I don't know the names or location of my many times removed ancestors of a thousand years ago, does not mean they didn't exist. it only means that that information has been lost.

genetic material is the key to the transmission of traits from one generation to the next and that key to understanding evolution. it happened - get over it

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Stu in the electron cloud
Date: 01 Jul 14 - 06:42 PM

"and I fully realize mudcat evolutionists infighting is not peer review, but as a layman it is faintly amusing to witness."

I guess that's like when you're a kid and all the adults are laughing at a rude joke you don't understand but laugh along with anyway in the hope you look like you understand what's going on.

Also, you're not a layman Pete. You're a creationist that doesn't understand the basic arguments and can't be arsed to find out anything about the subject he's pontificating on.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Jul 14 - 06:31 PM

jeri...it was steve who first used "neo Darwinism" and I ventured that I thought it meant mutations added to the natural selection that Darwin thought sufficient for molecules to man evolution. Darwin knew nothing of mutations, I presume , so that being the added ingredient, added subsequent to darwins idea.ie , I presume mutations as the agent of change was not on his radar.
i'm sorry if you thought I was ridiculing. perhaps you need to lighten up a bit. maybe scientists of Darwinian persuasion take themselves too seriously.
sciencegeek. here is the problem. you talk so scientifically, but I fail to see how tracing your human ancestry even back to neandertals equates to pond scum to profs evolution evidenced as true. you would have to go back to something pre-human to validate that idea.
that is not as far as Wallace went, I believe. and Darwin charged him with possibly killing off their "baby". Wallace at least knew humans were vastly superior to any other creature.
and I fully realize mudcat evolutionists infighting is not peer review, but as a layman it is faintly amusing to witness.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Jul 14 - 03:18 PM

Pete, before you ridicule other people, you might want to put the thesaurus down. "Ponderous" is an adjective, not a verb. Mutations are how species can change, not an "added ingredient". And what is "neo-Darwinism"?   I've never heard the term before, and my spell-checker doesn't believe it exists. Probably coined by incognicenti to belittle people or concepts they aren't equipped to understand, and aren't open to trying.
Which brings me to...
He says there aren't any remaining...

They also teach math, and history, and [shockhorror] English in schools, along with science. Might explain a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 01 Jul 14 - 01:42 PM

"although "an allele provides a trait" covers rather a lot of ground"

yet another issue relating to misconceptions... there is no one single answer that reveals all...

even 42 is but a partial answer... LOL

if you want to appreciate the complexity of life, then look at the Krebs cycle.... as the mind boggles... :)

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Jul 14 - 01:38 PM

"Darwin thought that natural selection was a sufficient mechanism for pond scum to ponderous professors evolution."

There is proof right here on this thread. Isn't a close genetic relationship to pond scum the only explanation for Steve Shaw's posts? It is obvious that when cornered by his intellectual betters he does not revert to his reptile brain as many humans do. He skips right back to pond scum.

Jackarse... good one Flintlock.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Jul 14 - 12:41 PM

Yes, sciencegeek, that's pretty much my understanding although "an allele provides a trait" covers rather a lot of ground.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 01 Jul 14 - 11:13 AM

frequency... how often, in a population of individuals, will a particular allele occur.

In very basic terms - an allele is a specific form of a gene that brings about ( or at least can bring about) a trait in the individual - though you may also have alleles that do nothing other than exist so there is nothing to select for or against. The most common examples are for eye color or blood type... and it is mutations that alter alleles that provide variations in gene types.

If an allele provides a trait that is advantageous... either because it helps an individual to survive or win a mate & produce more offspring, then that allele has the opportunity to increase in frequency in a population.   Over time, the makeup of the population will change to reflect the selection of alleles in the population. Given enough time, the individuals in that population will differ from their earlier ancestors enough to regarded as a "new" species or subspecies. Much like history... it reflects the changes over time.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Jul 14 - 09:59 AM

Neo-Darwinism.

Right. Steve seems to think it's the root of all evil. I wasn't all that familiar with the term so I did some Googling. Its meanng seems to have drifted a bit over the last 120 years or so but this will do for a start -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Darwinism

If you've got an hour and twelve minutes to spare there's this - Neo-Darwinism Lecture by Richard Dawkins. Moderately tedious history of the progress of thought on Evolution but it has some interesting points. For instance at around 42 minutes Dawkins says, in a discussion on the brightness or dullness of guppies in the absence or presence of predation -

Natural selection favours those individuals who in this distribution are a bit more brightly coloured than the others.

Staring at 56 mins 37 secs there is a sequence which does seem to support Steve's point of view. During it he says -

Since the whole point about neo-Darwinism is that it is changes in frequencies of something, you've got to look for something that can be said to have a frequency at all.

I'm a little confused, or perhaps Steve is.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Stu
Date: 01 Jul 14 - 07:22 AM

"as I understand it; Darwin thought that natural selection was a sufficient mechanism for pond scum to ponderous professors evolution."

Then you don't understand it.


"Natural selection operates on heritable traits."

Well . . . this is oversimplifying the argument made in the original article. Natural selection is not a single process, as Dave says it does not have "goals" and it is erroneous to say so, as it is mindless and mechanistic but not random either.

Genes are passed on as the result of natural selection, it doesn't operate on them directly. Variation, reproductive bias and the transmission of heritable traits are all processes involved in natural selection; it is not a single process but a combination of these processes.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: sciencegeek
Date: 01 Jul 14 - 07:21 AM

"in the mean time, I must admit , that it is quite amusing watching a bunch of scientists who all believe evolution is true, squabbling about how it is supposed to have happened!"

and in the statement above we have a classic example of scientific misconceptions. he couldn't have done better to demonstrate why we need to a much better job educating people as just what science and scientific method is about...

1. the bickering on a mudcat thread IS NOT scientific debate or peer review.

2. unlike dogma, the writings of an individual in the past are a reflection of the current understanding and available information of that time... and a scientist like Darwin fully expected, and indeed hoped, that others would take up the study and expand upon it. The Origin of Species was intended to posit an explanation for what he had observed in nature and find answers. Darwin was painfully aware of his ignorance regarding how heredity works, but he was sure that better understanding would support his basic premise... and it does. The entire genome study supports his theory of evolution.

3. science includes peer review, and Darwin really only had one peer in his lifetime... Alfred Wallace, who had also traveled widely and made close observations of the natural world around him. They both were in close agreement. Those who opposed him did so on theological grounds, not scientific ones...

4. today you can have sample of your DNA sent out to a lab and have it examined to determine, in general terms, your ancestry. A co-worker and his wife had this done recently. This "full blooded" Sicilian includes Germanic and Scandinavian ancestry. You can even look to see if any Neanderthal genes are present. Our increased understanding of genetic material makes this possible. It also supports the theory of evolution, it is the missing information/understanding that Darwin was looking for, but could not find.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Jul 14 - 06:22 AM

Steve Shaw previously -
Next, "survival of the fittest", as described by the ignorant writer of the piece, has nothing to do with individuals or species or whatever,

In his definition of Natural Selection, Darwin uses the word "individual" three times and "species" twice. Just in case you hadn't noticed, the main title of his book is "The Origin of Species". He has a rather flowery writing style so it can be difficult to extract the kernel of what he is saying. I think this about does it - "will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving". You seem to have terrible trouble understanding that so perhaps this will help -

But natural selection doesn't choose genes directly, it chooses the effects that genes have on bodies, technically called phenotypic effects.
Richard Dawkins "The Blind Watchmaker" Penguin Books p60

Steve Shaw
make a case?

natural selection operates on heritable traits. Natural selection operates on heritable traits. Natural selection operates on heritable traits.

I don't think taking an unsupported statement and saying it three times constitutes making a case. All that was missing was "Because I say so!" on the end. You never make a case. For all I know, you may have a valid case but you positively refuse to present it. A few days ago, I quoted Darwin's own definition of Natural Selection without comment. On the strength of that you have linked me with "Adolf" called me a fascist and implied that I am a racist. That isn't the best way to bring people over to your point of view.

Most bizarrely, you have called me a neo-Darwinist. I think I'll come back to that separately.

(Thanks for picking up on "goals", DaveO. Saved me the trouble.)

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 30 Jun 14 - 10:09 AM

the bloody planet may well be impacted, tangentially, by that operation, but natural selection hasn't got those goals.

Please note that natural selection HAS NO GOALS at all, for good or ill. It just happens, and the effects are not responses to "goals".

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 07:44 PM

Enery? Would that be 'Enery Cooper or 'Enery the Eighth I am I am? Or might I have meant "every"?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 07:41 PM

You're a very silly fellow, Wackers. If by now you haven't discerned that you, of all people, should refrain from picking me up on the use of English, then you're cruisin' fer a bruisin', old chap. I shall have to put myself on red alert enery time you post in case (what do I mean, "in case"? Bwahahahaha!) you commit a faux-pas or six that I can gleefully go to town on. Alternatively (or, as you ignorant yanks like to say, alternately), I could just sit here and eat these crisps. Yum.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 07:34 PM

You're getting old, Snailie. You seem to think that brainless verbatim quotes with bits in tendentious red can make a case. Why, anyone can do that. Dear boy, that is no substitute for proper argument. The point here is that you haven't adequate brain-power to interpret the passages you quote with sufficient clarity. It really is quite simple, and a re-reading of your quoted passage, this time with the intent of comprehending it properly, will tell you that natural selection operates on heritable traits. Natural selection operates on heritable traits. Natural selection operates on heritable traits.

Not on individuals and not on races and not on species. Individuals and species and the bloody planet may well be impacted, tangentially, by that operation, but natural selection hasn't got those goals. Only ignorant neo-Darwinists and fascists think that. It operates purely on heritable traits. The rest may well follow, and, of course, it does. But if we're talking about how natural selection operates, it pays to focus and get to the nitty-gritty, not just argue for the sake of it cos Steve sez one thing, you big kid, yeah?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 04:36 PM

seems steve has been missing my contributions, judging by his attempts to insult his fellow believers, whose doctrine is not close enough to his own, by comparing them to me.
did I understand that he is not neo Darwinist!?
as I understand it; Darwin thought that natural selection was a sufficient mechanism for pond scum to ponderous professors evolution.
as that would not now seem to be not the case, the added ingredient,... added since, is mutations, very occasionally, throwing up something to move the process forward, this ,I thought is neo Darwinism.
by all means correct me if I have this wrong. I realize that this is not a complete picture of the idea.
in the mean time, I must admit , that it is quite amusing watching a bunch of scientists who all believe evolution is true, squabbling about how it is supposed to have happened!

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Musket
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 12:40 PM

It's Jackarse, not Jackass.

Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 12:37 PM

Troubadour

I am confident that you could put that in front of Mr. Shaw five times and he still would not glean the meaning of the word. He is fortunate that in human civilization culling is less common that in herd animals, for example, wild jackasses, creatures Mr. Shaw no doubt has an affinity for.

If you listen carefully, you will find that the English wild jackass does not say "Hee Haw." He says "Steve Shaw."

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 07:00 AM

Steve Shaw
What a shame that poor old Charles Darwin has the likes of you and Adolf around to misinterpret him

Don't do that Steve, there's a good chap. It only serves to draw attention to your complete failure to put forward any sort of coherent scientific case.

I am not sure how I can be accused of misrepresenting Darwin by quoting him verbatim. You seem to have some trouble understanding what he said. Perhaps some highlights would help -

Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 08:35 PM

erstwhile
ˈəːstwʌɪl/
adjective
adjective: erstwhile

    1.
    former.
    "the erstwhile president of the company"
    synonyms:        former, old, past, one-time, sometime, as was, ex-, late, then; More
    previous, prior, foregoing;
    formalquondam;
    archaicwhilom
    "written in memory of the composer's erstwhile teacher"
    antonyms:        present, future

adverb
archaic
adverb: erstwhile

    1.
    formerly.
    "Mary Anderson, erstwhile the queen of America's stage"

Simple really!

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 06:32 PM

It seems that whenever you read something you don't understand, you say it it "bollocks" and accuse the writer of ignorance. I am going to assume that you have the ability to look up "erstwhile" yourself and take your blathering as proof of your belligerent benightedness.

An amusing aside, this, from Wackeroo, if nothing else. Perhaps this clown will finally apprise us as to what he thinks "erstwhile" actually means. Anyone think he'll look it up first? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 06:26 PM

Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection.

Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species", Penguin Classics, p115

What a shame that poor old Charles Darwin has the likes of you and Adolf around to misinterpret him. The whole point of the passage you quote is that it is the variation, mentioned in the first line, that is selected for. Not the individual or the species or the race or whatever you neo-Darwinists wish to tendentiously insert. You are seriously struggling, pete-like, with this stuff. Why don't you toddle off now and do a bit of revision?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 02:40 PM

Would it be fair to speculate that bacteria is more "fit" for long term survival than humans (certainly as to ability to adapt)? If so, should we change our view and see bacteria as a higher life form than humans? While that does not make sense, condidering it can help frame the meaning of the word fit, and if it is a useful criteria.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 02:33 PM

Random thoughts:

Fitness could be a big factor of spreading seeds widely, but not necessarily the only one-especially for survival over the long term, in a rapidly changing world.

A good question is what would define "fit", and fit for what?

When circumstances change rapidly, more than before, would some of the previous definitions of being "fit"change with it? Specialization for survival for one situation could be seen as a benefit one day, and be a hinderance the next, with a new playing field.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 02:14 PM

The more widely the seeds are spread, the more likely vestiges will survive?

Therefore, "widespreadness" (if it wasn't a word before, it is now) is just another element of "fitness"!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 02:41 PM

I decided to check out Google for hits on scientific method and Wiki does an intersting job...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

one major annoyance for me over the years has been the overuse of "testimonials", first person accounts of their thoughts but with little or no background provided to help you determine the validity of their statements. I tried to put some kind of order to what I would read in Organic Gardening back in the 1970's and found all kinds of contradictory information.

It turned out that without any background information regarding the geographic area, climate and soil types there was no way to determine what factors were involved that would influence their results. There are very good reasons why seed packets come with information regarding growing zones... what they often leave off are the other requirements for strong growth, such as soil pH, mineral content and tilth.

It is not enough to say we tried to grow this variety of tomato, did this, that, and the other thing and here is what happened. You have to provide the background information.. what kind of soil type, the elevation of the land, degree days (how many days at the needed temperature) and rainfall are just some of the info that is needed to make reasonable assumptions.

The point being... testimonials are only good for a single situation and can not be relied upon to provide useful information for other situations.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 01:50 PM

Donuel...

reminds me of the day that the hubby was sitting in class - big auditorium- when the fixtures started to sway and the plastic (fortunately) light panels fell to the floor. The professor goes, "What the hell was that?!?"

It was a geology class and the professor was a leading expert in plate techtonics.... :D ... he figured it out soon enough, the epicenter was a few miles north, but it still makes for a good story. And even relatively stable areas have their little surprises.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 01:10 PM

Speaking of plate tectonics, late this morning I was subjected to wildly extreme ultra low frequency booms that lasted about five or six seconds. It was related to but was different than thunder. I have never experienced anything like it before. It was intense.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 11:31 AM

"The more widely the seeds are spread, the more likely vestiges will survive?"

consider the ginko tree... the last representative species still extant, found in a remote location and then transplanted around the world.

I prefer to think of evolution as the history of populations... it's really the study of what has happened in the past, because the present is still murky and the future has yet to unfold. History could not predict events like the rise of fascism or communism... but you can look through the historic record and trace the events that did result in those events. Just as life is what happens while you're making other plans... so is history and evolution.

We understand the basics of plate tectonics, but still can't pinpoint an eruption. Or predict which orbiting body will intersect our orbit until it actually happens and someone discovers it. When you deal with endangered species, it becomes very clear that extinction isn't all that hard to achieve... it's reversing the trend that's difficult.